You are here: / / Even though Mother Properly Awarded Custody, Father Should Have Been Awarded...

Even though Mother Properly Awarded Custody, Father Should Have Been Awarded Decision-Making Authority Re: Education

In affirming Family Court’s award of sole custody to mother, the Second Department determined the father should have been awarded decision-making authority for the child’s education:

When joint custody is not possible because of the antagonistic relationship between the parties…, it may be appropriate, depending upon the particular circumstances of the case, to award some custodial decision-making authority to the noncustodial parent…. The division of authority should be made in a manner intended to take advantage of the strengths and abilities of the noncustodial parent with respect to a particular dimension of child-rearing…. The Family Court’s determination that it would be in the child’s best interests to award the mother decision-making authority with respect to the child’s education is not supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record. The father researched educational options for the subject child at every stage of his schooling. Once the child started school and began receiving homework assignments, the father supervised his homework, took part in school-related activities, and remained involved with his schooling at every stage. The father contacted the child’s teachers regarding issues of concern. Jacobs v Young, 2013 NY Slip Op 04607, 2nd Dept, 6-19-13

 

You might also like
THEFT DID NOT WARRANT UPWARD DEPARTURE FROM PRESUMPTIVE RISK LEVEL (SECOND DEPT).
CONTINUING TORT DOCTRINE APPLIED TO A COUNTERCLAIM FOR A DELIBERATE CAMPAIGN OF HARASSMENT SPANNING 13 YEARS.
RESTRAINING A PERSON FOR A FEW SECONDS WHILE ATTEMPTING TO PULL THAT PERSON INTO A VEHICLE DOES NOT SATISFY THE CRITERIA FOR KIDNAPPING (SECOND DEPT).
DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH CPLR 3216 OR 22 NYCRR 202.7, AND THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION FOR A “SUA SPONTE” DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS PROPERLY MAILED AND THE DEFECT COULD NOT BE CURED BY THE SECOND AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED IN REPLY (SECOND DEPT). ​
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT SEX OFFENDER WAIVED HIS PRESENCE AT THE SORA RISK ASSESSMENT HEARING, ISSUE CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
ON APPEAL, CONVICTIONS FOR “INCLUSORY, CONCURRENT COUNTS” WERE VACATED, AND SEPARATE CONVICTIONS FOR A “CONTINUING OFFENSE” WERE VACATED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Criteria for Appointment of Temporary Receiver to Wind Up Dissolution of Partnership Not Met

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Driver Stalled in Moving Lane of Traffic Not Negligent Re: Rear-End Collisi... Refusal to Allow DSS Workers Into Apartment Did Not Constitute Neglect